Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32843744›Full record

ReviewEye (London, England)2020

Update on Herpes simplex keratitis management.

Daniel Sibley, Daniel F P Larkin

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eye (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Clinical Roles of Infectious Diseases Specialists in Ophthalmology.Infectious diseases & clinical microbiology · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Emerging drugs for the treatment of herpetic keratitis.Expert opinion on emerging drugs · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel SibleyCornea & External Diseases Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital, 162 City Road, London, EC1V 2PD, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8717-8180
Daniel F P LarkinCornea & External Diseases Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital, 162 City Road, London, EC1V 2PD, UK. f.larkin@ucl.ac.uk.
Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Herpes simplex keratitis (HSK) is a common, potentially blinding condition characterised by recurrent infections of the cornea, seen by both general ophthalmologists and corneal specialists. Successful treatment of recurrences reduces disease duration, prevents progressive corneal scaring leading to vision loss and reduces risk of further recurrences. In this review we discuss the relative advantages of the diagnostic laboratory investigations including polymerase chain reaction, viral culture and fluorescence-based immunohistochemistry. We review treatment strategies in selected aspects of HSK and discuss the management options in cases not responding to treatment.

Indexed as

Herpes SimplexKeratitis, HerpeticCorneaHumansPolymerase Chain ReactionRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID32843744
PMCPMC7784930
OpenAlexW3080361556

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.